bennett-ellis-matlock-llc-et-al-v-fiblywibly

clerkFlow Bot2025-09-10 03:11 p.m.

New Case

Bennett, Ellis & Matlock, LLC, et al. v. FiblyWibly

Case Type

civil

Case Number

CV-435-25

clerkFlow Bot2025-09-10 03:11 p.m.

Channel Permissions Synced

Permissions have been synced to Chambers of Chancellor Cabot.

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-10 08:11 p.m.

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-10 08:12 p.m.

Who am I adding

clerkFlow Bot2025-09-10 08:12 p.m.

Case Modified

@cabot

has added @Brenda to the case channel.

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-10 08:12 p.m.

24 hours CC

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-10 08:12 p.m.

@Brenda

Brenda 2025-09-10 08:12 p.m.

Thank you, I will have this soon

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-10 08:23 p.m.

Thanks

clerkFlow Bot2025-09-10 08:23 p.m.

Case Modified

@cabot

has added @meowiitten to the case channel.

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-10 08:24 p.m.

@meowiitten

Hi waive summons?

clerkFlow Bot2025-09-10 08:24 p.m.

Case Modified

@cabot

has added @fiblywibly to the case channel.

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-10 08:24 p.m.

okay jesus 29 pages

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-10 08:24 p.m.

lord have mercy

meowiitten 2025-09-10 08:24 p.m.

Its not text searchable

meowiitten 2025-09-10 08:25 p.m.

I can't do anything with this

Brenda 2025-09-10 08:25 p.m.

Is there a rule that requires it to be text searchable-

meowiitten 2025-09-10 08:25 p.m.

Yes

Brenda 2025-09-10 08:26 p.m.

OK, I will create a text-searchable copy. Hold on

meowiitten 2025-09-10 08:27 p.m.

@cabot

I will raise the preliminary issue of ripeness since no fees have actually been collected yet

Brenda 2025-09-10 08:27 p.m.

@cabot

And I would counter that by citing Susan b. Anthony List v. Driehaus

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-10 08:27 p.m.

great thank you, make reps tonight both of you i will address in the morning as im hungry

Brenda 2025-09-10 08:27 p.m.

This is very much impending

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-10 08:27 p.m.

preemptive challenge?

Brenda 2025-09-10 08:28 p.m.

Yes, Your Honor

Brenda 2025-09-10 08:28 p.m.

Where a plaintiff alleges an intention to engage in proscribed conduct, that suffices for pre-enforcement standing

Brenda 2025-09-10 08:28 p.m.

We intend to ignore and violate these unconstitutional, unlawful, and tortious Levies entirely

Brenda 2025-09-10 08:28 p.m.

And therefore we will suffer harm.

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-10 08:28 p.m.

okay feel free to make oral reps about this tmrw and ill decide on it, but do not insult eachother or address eachother or im ruling for the opposing side

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-10 08:28 p.m.

and submit your args in one single message

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-10 08:29 p.m.

bless you

Brenda 2025-09-10 08:30 p.m.

@cabot

Your Honor, as a preliminary matter, I would move for a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining Defendant from continuing to deny me access to the DoS Discord server

Brenda 2025-09-10 08:30 p.m.

I was muted for 3 days, and then that mute was increased to 7 days randomly, after I encouraged business owners to contact me to file a legal action

Brenda 2025-09-10 08:30 p.m.

All in clear violation of my First Amendment right to freely express myself in a public/limited-public forum

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-10 08:31 p.m.

I would rule in your favour on that request but I believe the last time I consulted CA on this I was told this was a moderation issue

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-10 08:31 p.m.

@krabz

meowiitten 2025-09-10 08:31 p.m.

@Brenda

Can you send the text searchable copy

Brenda 2025-09-10 08:31 p.m.

Uploading shortly

Brenda 2025-09-10 08:32 p.m.

@cabot

It appears it exceeds the MB limit. Does Your Honor mind if I file the text-searchable copy in Clark County discord server and send a message link here?

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-10 08:33 p.m.

Sure

Brenda 2025-09-10 08:33 p.m.

@meowiitten

@cabot

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-10 08:33 p.m.

im crying

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-10 08:33 p.m.

gagged

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-10 08:33 p.m.

Anyway.

Brenda 2025-09-10 08:36 p.m.

@turntable

(SecState muted me cuz he was petty I wanted to sue-)

Brenda 2025-09-10 08:36 p.m.

(Please give permission so I can have this challenged)

meowiitten 2025-09-10 09:14 p.m.

@cabot

Count VII should be dismissed sua sponte for lack of justiciability given muting and server action involves community rules

meowiitten 2025-09-10 09:14 p.m.

Or just remove it @Brenda

Brenda 2025-09-10 09:14 p.m.

I'm not removing anything

Brenda 2025-09-10 09:14 p.m.

If CA wants to intervene, they may make their intentions known

Brenda 2025-09-10 09:14 p.m.

Otherwise, this Court should proceed to act, as it has done in the past, until CA decides that this is a matter best handled by them

Brenda 2025-09-10 09:15 p.m.

@cabot

Your Honor, seeing as there's been no answer from CA, we ask that the Court enter a TRO enjoining the mute and any further mutes

meowiitten 2025-09-10 09:17 p.m.

Lmfao

Brenda 2025-09-10 09:17 p.m.

@cabot

and I stress here, as I did in the complaint, that there is no rule that prohibits advertising in #business-discussion. There is also no community rule that prohibits this. Therefore, FiblyWibly was not "enforcing community rules" as opposing counsel would suggest

Brenda 2025-09-10 09:17 p.m.

I could go in Clark County general and advertise my legal services as wildly, loudly, and promiscuously as I want to, and no mod would stop me

Brenda 2025-09-10 09:17 p.m.

That's because it's not a community rule

Brenda 2025-09-10 09:18 p.m.

It's an unwritten, made-up rule / otherwise known as retaliation to speech

meowiitten 2025-09-10 09:18 p.m.

Buddy you don't write the community rules

meowiitten 2025-09-10 09:18 p.m.

This isn't how it works

Brenda 2025-09-10 09:18 p.m.

They're publicly posted

Brenda 2025-09-10 09:19 p.m.

The rules of the DoS server are similarly publicly posted

Brenda 2025-09-10 09:19 p.m.

Nothing about advertising in #business-discussion

meowiitten 2025-09-10 09:19 p.m.

Your first amendment doesn't apply in a discord server buddy

meowiitten 2025-09-10 09:19 p.m.

Your clark county first amendment right doesn't apply here(edited)

Brenda 2025-09-10 09:19 p.m.

This Court's precedent, and real-life precedent, would hold otherwise

Brenda 2025-09-10 09:19 p.m.

And I would discourage cross-talk as it clutters the channel, straining judicial eyes

meowiitten 2025-09-10 09:20 p.m.

Why you so retardeddddedddddd

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-10 10:10 p.m.

Count VII is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-10 10:10 p.m.

Any other representations

Brenda 2025-09-10 10:11 p.m.

I, for one, feel better knowing it was considered.

Brenda 2025-09-10 10:12 p.m.

@cabot

Your Honor, we move for a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining enforcement of the Levies and the Financial Report scheme that Defendant FiblyWibly has imposed. Genuinely, they are unconstitutional and devoid of any statutory basis

meowiitten 2025-09-10 10:13 p.m.

@Brenda

Can you file an amended complaint removing count vii and factual background section ii

meowiitten 2025-09-10 10:13 p.m.

Both are immaterial now

Brenda 2025-09-10 10:13 p.m.

Well, it was dismissed, not struck

Brenda 2025-09-10 10:13 p.m.

It'

Brenda 2025-09-10 10:14 p.m.

I'm sure you can pretend it's not there anymore without me needing to redo the entire Complaint

meowiitten 2025-09-10 10:14 p.m.

Okay well then section II doesn't need a response in the event answer is required. Deal?

Brenda 2025-09-10 10:15 p.m.

Well, no, section II is important when it comes to calculating punitive damages

Brenda 2025-09-10 10:15 p.m.

Him doing a whole coordinated scheme to suppress the lawsuit from coming to fruition speaks to his state of mind and wanton disregard for our rights

meowiitten 2025-09-10 10:15 p.m.

Don't be ridiculous

Brenda 2025-09-10 10:15 p.m.

I'll let @cabot rule on this matter

meowiitten 2025-09-10 10:16 p.m.

Section II only relates to the now dismissed Count VII(edited)

Brenda 2025-09-10 10:16 p.m.

(he wants us to circumcise the Factual Allegations)

meowiitten 2025-09-10 10:16 p.m.

So in an answer it will just say "Denied to the extent an answer is needed" something along those lines

Brenda 2025-09-10 10:18 p.m.

FiblyWibly censoring information about the lawsuit is absolutely relevant when it comes to deciphering his state of mind. Clearly, he knew that he was doing something illegal, otherwise he would not feel the need to silence my law firm.

Brenda 2025-09-10 10:18 p.m.

And all this will be extremely relevant when considering an award of punitive damages.

meowiitten 2025-09-10 10:23 p.m.

@Brenda

Are all of these both official and individual capacity

Brenda 2025-09-10 10:25 p.m.

It's listed under each count in the last paragraph

Brenda 2025-09-10 10:28 p.m.

Official misconduct = official for equitable relief, individual for damages
Ultra vires = official and/or individual for equitable relief
Deprivation of Rights = official for equitable relief, individual for damages
Conversion = official for equitable relief, individual for damages
Extortion = official for equitable relief, individual for damages
Outrage = individual for damages

*See 5 MSC 1 § 3207.1: "The State of Mayflower shall be liable, respecting the provision of this title [individual torts claims] relating to torts claims, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private indiviudal under like circumstances, but shall not be liable for interest prior to judgment or for punitive damages."

meowiitten 2025-09-11 02:22 a.m.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF SECRETARY FIBLYWIBLY’S MOTION TO DISMISS

@Brenda @cabot

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-11 06:00 a.m.

Correct

Brenda 2025-09-11 06:36 a.m.

@cabot

72 hrs to respond?

Brenda 2025-09-11 10:11 a.m.

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS W/ REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

@cabot @meowiitten

Brenda 2025-09-11 11:13 a.m.

@cabot

We also oppose any suggestion that Defendant has "legislative immunity". FiblyWibly is not the Senate—he's not even a Senator—and his unlawful levies are devoid of any statutory basis, violate 4 MSC 1 § 2202(a), and violate the Federal Constitution. Every reasonable official, in his shoes, would have known this. There's simply no argument to be made about any immunity, let alone legislative immunity.

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-11 11:50 a.m.

Agreed

meowiitten 2025-09-11 11:53 a.m.

Don’t be so quick to dismiss it

meowiitten 2025-09-11 11:54 a.m.

Read further into it

Brenda 2025-09-11 11:55 a.m.

What is there to read into? Mr. Wibly is extorting private entities into lining his pockets. Not the State's pockets—his own pockets.

Brenda 2025-09-11 11:55 a.m.

And when I informed him that this is Bribery, he ignored it and seemed to think he is immune from the law.

meowiitten 2025-09-11 11:56 a.m.

We’re not even there yet buddy and that allegation borders on frivolous

Brenda 2025-09-11 11:56 a.m.

Interesting. Is opposing counsel suggesting that a secret state treasury exists?

Brenda 2025-09-11 11:57 a.m.

I can save you time by stating unequiovically that one does not exist. And since extortion is an inchoate tort, his various excuses offer no aid.

meowiitten 2025-09-11 11:57 a.m.

Also why is my name specifically mentioned as a counterpoint? That’s not proper

meowiitten 2025-09-11 11:57 a.m.

That’s like a pro se argument

Brenda 2025-09-11 11:57 a.m.

Fairness toward opposing counsel and candor toward the tribunal are both rules when you practice in this Court.

Brenda 2025-09-11 11:58 a.m.

You're making arguments that contradicts your own lawsuits, including a Consent Judgment and Order entered into between you and Fiblywibly

meowiitten 2025-09-11 11:58 a.m.

I am not a party at interest don’t be ridiculous

meowiitten 2025-09-11 11:58 a.m.

Unless you’re accusing me of fraud on the court

Brenda 2025-09-11 11:59 a.m.

I'm accusing your arguments of being defective under judicial estoppel.

Brenda 2025-09-11 11:59 a.m.

And saying "don’t be ridiculous" after you did something absolutely outrageous doesn't make what you did less outrageous

Brenda 2025-09-11 11:59 a.m.

meowiitten 2025-09-11 12:00 p.m.

I wasn’t arguing in the name of the state then??? The state wasn’t even in privity? Do you know the standard for estoppel lol???

Also for the record… I never collected attorney’s fees. Either way it’s not relevant what I did in my private practice against private parties

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:00 p.m.

Well, I do think it's important to note that you don't believe in the arguments you're proposing

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:00 p.m.

That's a matter of ethics... proposing a defense without probable cause

meowiitten 2025-09-11 12:01 p.m.

Okay, and I said that’s like a pro se argument and it’s laughable

meowiitten 2025-09-11 12:01 p.m.

It’s not a proper argument

meowiitten 2025-09-11 12:01 p.m.

Not that it can’t be considered

meowiitten 2025-09-11 12:04 p.m.

@cabot

How long for ruling

meowiitten 2025-09-11 12:06 p.m.

@cabot

Since in Section II of this response they admit it’s against the department as a whole (through fibly?), I would just ask you to consider sovereign immunity as well since the state code clearly prevents money damages against a government agency

meowiitten 2025-09-11 12:07 p.m.

Long line of cases where money damages were refused against a state agency, even some of my own

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:07 p.m.

No. It's against the department on the official capacity. The individual capacity is against FiblyWibly.

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:07 p.m.

I made this extremely clear at the beginning when you asked.

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:07 p.m.

meowiitten 2025-09-11 12:08 p.m.

So you cannot have it one way and then the other

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:08 p.m.

There's a long line of cases where you, Mr. Sado, have sued in the individual and official capacity (i.e., quasi-official lawsuits).

meowiitten 2025-09-11 12:08 p.m.

His capacity is not that transformative

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:08 p.m.

That's expressly permitted by statute, and it is common in the Federal courts.

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:08 p.m.

In fact, it is required for official misconduct. That is a quasi-official. The individual pays the damages.

meowiitten 2025-09-11 12:08 p.m.

No, not really

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:09 p.m.

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-11 12:09 p.m.

Explain to me why money damages are not apt, this capacity stuff is in my opinion stupid so I don't ever read into it

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-11 12:09 p.m.

I understand state law prohibits money damages in official capacity cases against the department at wide?

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-11 12:10 p.m.

But if he's also sued in his individual capacity he can be liable for money damages?

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:10 p.m.

5 MSC 1 § 3207.1 waives sovereign immunity for damages claims, even if I did sue the State of Mayflower for damages (which i didn't): "The State of Mayflower shall be liable, respecting the provision of this title [individual torts claims] relating to torts claims, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private indiviudal under like circumstances, but shall not be liable for interest prior to judgment or for punitive damages."

meowiitten 2025-09-11 12:10 p.m.

Do you understand the state of mayflower includes arms of the state(edited)

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:10 p.m.

No such thing as arms and limbs and fingers. Either you sue the state, or you don't.

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:10 p.m.

A state agency is the state.

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:11 p.m.

Unless your position is that the DoS is part of the State of Quannahassit, in which case you may remove this to the UoC Supreme Court.

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-11 12:11 p.m.

What's the standard for an award of money damages in their individual capacity whilst they are also sued in their official capacity?

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:11 p.m.

Wanton disregard for rights under 42 USC § 1983 (our state equivalent is deprivation of rights)(edited)

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-11 12:12 p.m.

Must they have acted in the excess of their official capacity to qualify for individual capacity money damages?

meowiitten 2025-09-11 12:12 p.m.

Simply put, he shouldn’t be asked to pay money damages for policy formulation, failing to violate a clearly established right (at least not yet), and for other reasons as well. Even in cases where people tried to sue AG Barr for his deployment of federal agents to the BLM Protests, in his individual capacity, those failed on QI grounds

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:12 p.m.

lol? He's extorting companies to line his own pockets

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:12 p.m.

With no statutory basis, in fact it violates the statute very clearly, and violates the Federal Constitution. He has no immunity because he knowingly and deliberately violated the law through this outrageous scheme.

meowiitten 2025-09-11 12:14 p.m.

And we expressly deny that’s the case. Even if were so, mere threatened extortion (much like conversion) is not extortion by the civil statute

meowiitten 2025-09-11 12:14 p.m.

Without obtaining any property it can’t be other

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:14 p.m.

Extortion is an inchoate tort in the State of Mayflower. The very act of threatening is the extortion

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:14 p.m.

You clearly haven't read the Extortion statute we have.

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-11 12:14 p.m.

But I mean one is an alleged excess of powers covered by QI (AG Barr example) and the other one is an alleged excess of powers because of the law of agency which has a rule against self-dealing rule. The latter isn't covered by QI is it?

meowiitten 2025-09-11 12:14 p.m.

At best you have a claim for declaratory and injunctive relief

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:14 p.m.

I would say it isn't, Your Honor

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-11 12:15 p.m.

The law of agency is clearly established law is it not?

meowiitten 2025-09-11 12:15 p.m.

He’s taking a guess at where the money is going. This is like the same “taxes are theft” argument

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:15 p.m.

It's not often I ask for $15,000,000.00 in punitive damages—ever, frankly. But FiblyWibly's sheer audacity in constructing this deliberate scheme to violate the law of agency is... I think that sentence speaks for itself.

meowiitten 2025-09-11 12:15 p.m.

No way not at all

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:15 p.m.

And I agree, Your Honor, this is clearly established in Mechem and the common law.

meowiitten 2025-09-11 12:16 p.m.

The law of an agency is NOT clearly established(edited)

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:16 p.m.

Both of which are incorporated under 5 MSC

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:16 p.m.

Oh, I guess i can just violate the common law since it's so complicated!

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:16 p.m.

No, Mr. Sado, the common law is still law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse

meowiitten 2025-09-11 12:16 p.m.

So how do you know it’s going to “his pockets”

meowiitten 2025-09-11 12:17 p.m.

This is an interesting accusation

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:17 p.m.

Not state treasury, that makes it extortion since it's an inchoate tort

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:17 p.m.

The very act of threatening it makes it extortion under our statute. I don't care much for the federal tort

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-11 12:17 p.m.

What's the method for collecting the revenue he would gain

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-11 12:17 p.m.

Do departments have budget accounts they can allocate and handle ingame?

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-11 12:17 p.m.

Or is he planning on deputising himself or someone else to hold the money for the department

meowiitten 2025-09-11 12:18 p.m.

To my understanding, the department has a third party account that will essentially function like how some groups have a “payment group.” Each police department has armories and it requires people to pay with their personal funds. So there’s wanting to reimburse or pay people out(edited)

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:18 p.m.

That's not the explanation FiblyWibly gave me.

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:18 p.m.

So now there's just changing stories

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:19 p.m.

@cabot

FiblyWibly claims that the Senate is "passing" a law (it hasn't passed, still hasn't passed) to create a Treasury or something

meowiitten 2025-09-11 12:19 p.m.

What did he say can you screenshot it

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:19 p.m.

But this, again, has not passed

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-11 12:19 p.m.

Why is this not just an individual capacity lawsuit if you're alleging he doesn't have this power at all

meowiitten 2025-09-11 12:19 p.m.

Yeah

meowiitten 2025-09-11 12:19 p.m.

A treasury would be a third party account

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:19 p.m.

But we have no treasury. The law has not passed

meowiitten 2025-09-11 12:19 p.m.

This is being enacted expectantly

meowiitten 2025-09-11 12:19 p.m.

Okay, which is why he hasn’t started collecting yet?

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:19 p.m.

Are you conceding that he's doing something he has no power to do based on the fact he might get the power in the future?

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:19 p.m.

Is that what you're conceding

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-11 12:19 p.m.

So is enforcement delayed until the Senate passes the law?

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:19 p.m.

If so, this is an ipso facto claim of Extortion

meowiitten 2025-09-11 12:19 p.m.

Okay, which is why he hasn’t started collecting yet?

meowiitten 2025-09-11 12:19 p.m.

Yes

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:20 p.m.

You have, you require payment by September 15...

meowiitten 2025-09-11 12:20 p.m.

He hasn’t collected a single levy yet

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-11 12:20 p.m.

@Brenda

Is enforcement delayed until senate passes the law

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:20 p.m.

No, Your Honor, not from any official records I've seen

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-11 12:20 p.m.

Or has the date for enforcement been set before the senate passes a law

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-11 12:20 p.m.

What's the date for enforcement

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:20 p.m.

September 15

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:20 p.m.

We don't even know if it's passing

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-11 12:21 p.m.

So has the Senate agreed to pass it by that date

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-11 12:21 p.m.

Does he intend on enforcing his mandate on Sept 15 no matter what the Senate does

Chancellor Cabot ᴘᴄ 2025-09-11 12:21 p.m.

I.e., even if they don't pass anything

Brenda 2025-09-11 12:21 p.m.

Based on his very clear threats, I assume so